america - nonprofit · pdf filenew mexico association of grantmakers and ... actually...

www.nonprofitvote.org

AMERICA Goes to the Polls

A Report on Voter Turnoutin the 2008 Election

Prepared by the

Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network

America Goes to the Polls 2008

GOALS

Build Capacity for Nonpartisan, Nonprofit Voter Participation

Provide resources, training, technical assistance and support to state and local nonprofit voter participation

initiatives that work year-round to increase the number of nonprofits integrating voter and civic

engagement activities into their ongoing work.

Increase Voter Participation and Close Participation Gaps

Achieve sustained increases in voter participation, especially among voters with a recent history of lower

participation, through engaging voters where they gather to work, learn, advocate and receive services.

Broaden the Base of Support for Election Reforms

Involve the nonprofit sector to improve how democracy works by addressing systemic issues impacting

participation and voter confidence in elections and government.

Strengthen the Nonprofit Sector and Encourage New Civic Leadership

Encourage nonprofits and charities to become active participants in civic and voter engagement, gaining

better representation for their communities and creating new public leaders.

OUR WORK

In 2008 NVEN worked on voter engagement initiatives with state nonprofit associations and

statewide nonprofit and human service networks in 13 states. NVEN had a national voter engagement

partnership with the National Association of Community Health Centers. In addition, it provided

trainings, materials and technical assistance to the nonprofit sector as a whole through its website


And

Connecticut Association of Nonprofits

CT Center for a New Economy

Maine Association of Nonprofits

Montana Nonprofit Association

New Mexico Association of Grantmakers and

member foundations

New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits

North Carolina Center on Nonprofits

ABOUT THE NONPROFIT VOTER ENGAGEMENT NETWORK

The Nonprofit Voter Network (NVEN) dedicated to expand

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii Foreward

iv Introduction

1 Methodology

2-3 Executive Summary

4-15 US VOTER TURNOUT IN 2008

4 U.S. turnout in 2008 and historical trends

5 2008 State Turnout Rankings

6 -7 Growth in Voter Turnout in the States

8 -9 Campaign Spending and Voter Turnout

10 Election Day Registration and Turnout

11 Early Voting in 2008

12 Youth Vote 2008

13 African American and

Latino Vote in 2008

14 Expanding Voter Registration

15 Early Voting

16 Voting Rights for Ex-Offenders

17-19 OTHER KEY

ELECTION REFORMS

20 Sources

This report was produced with support from the Carnegie Corporation

of New York, Mitchell Kapor Foundation, Open Society Institute,

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Surdna Foundation, The John Merck Fund,

The George Gund Foundation, The Solidago Foundation,

The Threshold Foundation, Tides Foundation and individual donors.

AMERICA GOES TO THE POLLS

A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2008 General Election

Prepared by George Pillsbury –

Senior Policy and Development Director,

Julian Johannesen –

Research Associate,

Rachel Adams –

Communications Associate


Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network

A national program of the Minnesota Council of

Nonprofits, St. Paul, Minnesota

i

ing the role of nonprofits in democracyngagement

ing the role of nonprofits in democracy

ii America Goes to the Polls 2008

iii

FOREWARD

By Michael McDonald

Voting is groovy again. After a four decade lull, American voter participation has returned to relatively

high levels last experienced during the 1960s. Indeed, the 2008 turnout rate does not represent a

true apples-to-apples comparison. Lower participatory eighteen to twenty year olds are now counted

among the electorate. Now excluded are about half a million rejected mail ballots, compared with fewer

numbers when absentee voting required a valid excuse.

What will befuddle those who study voting is that conditions posited to explain lower voter

participation still exist: low trust in government, an anemic civic society, negative campaigning, and

television alternatives to political programming. Some clues for the greater participation level may be

lurking in this report: early voting and Election Day registration (EDR), renewed voter mobilization

efforts, and greater participation among minorities.

Can participation go higher? Iowa and Montana adopted EDR since the 2004 presidential election.

Yet, both experienced only modest increases in turnout. Given high turnout in other EDR states, it may

be that it takes time for voters to grow accustomed to a new rule. Voters are embracing early voting,

which experienced explosive growth over the last decade. Scholarly studies at the outset of early voting

found no appreciable turnout benefits. The story may be different now. A telling indicator is that turnout

rates increased from the modern low in 1996 along with rising early voting levels. The high number of

rejected mail ballots suggests states should proceed cautiously in reformulating their early voting laws.

Beyond changing how elections are run, voter mobilization appears to the primary voting determinant.

States that entered the electoral battleground in 2008 experienced the greatest turnout increase.

Those remaining on the battleground experienced smaller increases or remained essentially the same.

Those that left had more modest increases or actually experienced declines.

An enthusiasm gap is also evident. Non-battleground states with significant African-American

populations who turned out in large numbers experienced turnout increases from 2004. Turnout rates

actually decreased in some deep red states such as Utah and Alaska, among others.

Which is all to answer that turnout can go higher. As more states adopt EDR and early voting,

incremental turnout benefits will likely follow. When Republicans became enthusiastic again turnout

rates will increase. Still, to push turnout much higher electoral competition must be expanded. Imagine

if California, New York, and Texas were battleground states. For this reason, a national popular vote

for president may hold the key to further increasing American voter participation.

Dr. Michael P. McDonald is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public and International

Affairs at George Mason University and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute.

He runs the United States Election Project and serves on the Nonprofit Voter Engagement

Network’s Advisory Board

Voting is a core act of civic engagement

crucial to our success as

iv

INTRODUCTION

Voting is a core act of citizenship and civic engagement crucial to our success as a democracy. Not only

are voters more likely to get involved in their communities and take part in other civic activities, but

communities that vote are more likely to receive their fair share of attention from elected officials and

have higher levels of community health.

With help from America’s nonprofit sector, voter participation has reversed the decline in voter turnout

that followed 18-20 year olds winning the right to vote and returned to the levels last seen in the 1960s.

The nonprofit community is proud to have played an unprecedentedly large role in helping America

vote in 2008. Programs like those of the Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network, Community Health

Vote, Every Child Matters’ Vote for Kids, Native Vote, Disability Vote and many others worked to

engage communities with a recent history of non-voting, those communities least likely to be reached

by traditional voter outreach methods.

Several trends have emerged from this participation increase, some of which the nonprofit sector has

helped to both ignite and fuel. One of the most promising of these trends has been the steady rise in

voting among young people ages 18-29. Nonprofits like Rock the Vote, the New Voter Project, Generation

Engage, Declare Yourself, Voto Latino, Mobilize.org, Campus Compact, Hip Hop Summit and others

played an important role. Voter assistance and election monitoring also increased in 2008, helped by

websites such as the League of Women Voters Vote 4-1-1 and voter hotlines like 866-OUR VOTE,

888-Ve-y-Vota or the United Way’s 2-1-1 human service line.

Despite these increases in voter engagement, important improvements remain to be seen. Although

2008 had higher voter turnout, one in three eligible voters did not vote. It is unlikely voter participation

can go higher without addressing several antiquated and discriminatory characteristics of our voting

system, many of which have remained largely unchanged since the 18th and 19th century. For example,

the lack of a national standard for federal elections means that the 50 states have 50 different definitions

of “eligible voter” and 50 different ways to hold elections, creating confusion that disrupts voter

participation every Election Day. Furthermore, by staking the outcome of a national election on the 15

battleground states where candidates and campaigns focus the majority of their time, money, mobilization

and voter education activities, our current electoral system actually creates disincentives to vote for

the many Americans who do not reside in these states. This report addresses the implications of these

and other issues.

America Goes to The Polls draws on voter participation data from the United States Election Project,

U.S. Census, Electionline.org and Secretaries of States, among others. (Sources on page 20). The report

concludes with a section urging national standards for federal elections in areas like voter registration,

early voting and the definition of an eligible voter. America Goes to the Polls also suggests ways to bring

non-partisanship to election administration and competition and fairness to elections – all with likely

For more, please visit www.nonprofitvote.org –

or contact us at [email protected]


1

citizenship and a democracy.

VOTER TURNOUT

Voter turnout numbers come from the U.S.

Election Project at George Mason University,

directed by Professor Michael McDonald. The

Election Project has compiled data on eligible

voters and voter turnout dating back to 1980.

To arrive at the number of citizen eligible voters

18 years or older for each state, the Election

Project uses information from the U.S. Census

and other government sources for citizenship

data and felon data to establish the approximate

number of eligible voters in each of the 50 states

and the District of Columbia.

The Election Project collects voter turnout data

from State Election offices and reports it in two

ways: Highest Office Turnout, the total votes

counted for the highest office on the ballot and,

where available, Total Turnout, the total number

of voters who cast a ballot that was counted.

This difference between Highest Office Turnout

and Total Turnout is called the “residual vote”.

It is composed mainly of “undervotes” which

occur when a voter chooses not to vote in the

highest office race. It also includes some

“overvotes” which occur when a voter mistakenly

marks more than one choice for any one office

and the ballot is “spoiled” for that race. For

Presidential elections, total turnout has averaged

about one percent higher than the highest office

turnout for the last two elections.

To reflect the actual number of people voting,

we use total turnout. Most states report this

number. For those that do not, we calculate their

total turnout based on their highest office turn-

out increased by 1% to account for residual votes.

VOTER TURNOUT BY GROUPS

We report turnout information for demographic

groups from survey research such as that of the

U.S. Census’ Current Population Survey. Other

sources include CIRCLE’s for data on young

voters, Pew Hispanic Research Center for Latino

voters, and CNN’s America Votes 2008. A major

source of the CNN data is the National Election

Pool’s national exit poll conducted in 2008 by

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International

for CNN, Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC,

Fox, The New York Times and others. The

U.S. Census will provide its widely used survey

research on the 2008 elections later this year.

METHODOLOGY

2

benefits to voting and voter participation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. VOTER TURNOUT CONTINUES

TO RISE

The 2008 presidential election saw the highest

voter turnout in 40 years.

• 62% eligible voters cast a ballot, close to the

levels of the Kennedy and Johnson elections in

1960 (64%) and 1964 (63%) which at that time

were highest since 1908.

• This was the third consecutive presidential

election in which voter turnout has risen, marking

a possible end to the period of lower than usual

voter turnout that began in 1972, the year when

18-20 year olds gained the right to vote

The participation growth was fueled in part by

large increases in voting by young voters 18-29

and Latino and Black voters.

• Voter turnout among young voters ages 18-29

went up for the third consecutive national

election, pushing youth turnout over 50% of

eligible youth voters in 2008.

• More than 12 million Latino voters cast ballots,

continuing their steady climb as a share of the

U.S. electorate. Latinos represented an estimated

9% those voting in 2008, up from 8% in 2004

and 7% in 2000. The largest increases in Latino

voting were in the western battleground states of

New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

• About 2.6 million more black voters went to

the polls in 2008 compared to 2004, increasing

their share of the national vote from 11% to 13%.

Minnesota (78.5%), Wisconsin (73.3%) and

Maine (72.7%) again led the nation in turnout

of eligible voters. These are the same three states

that first started using Election Day registration

back in the 1970s – allowing voters to fix

registration issues at the polls on Election Day.

25 states and the District of Columbia

achieved their highest voter turnout since

the U.S. Election Project, the source of turnout

data for this report, began tracking state by state

turnout in 1980. North Carolina, Virginia,

South Carolina, and Mississippi led states that

improved their voter turnout between 2004 and

2008, surging 10.8%, 9.9%, 9.8% and 8.9%

respectively (adjusted for growth in the states’

voting eligible populations.) Turnout plunged

in Utah, dropping by 14.1% from 2004.

BATTLEGROUND STATES GET MONEY,

VISITS AND VOTERS

95% of the 495 million dollars spent on campaign

ads in the final six weeks of the campaign by the

candidates, parties and interest groups went to

15 battleground states. More than half of that

was spent in just the four super-battleground

states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

More than 98% of campaign events took place in the

same 15 states, with more than half of those events

taking place in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Voter turnout in the 15 battleground states

averaged seven points higher than in the 35

non-battleground states.

In 2008, 132 million or three of five eligible

voters, lived in non-battleground states where

campaigns rarely visited, spent little to no money

and did little organizing.

25 States achieved thei voter turnout since

the U.S. Election Project began tra


3

NEW TRENDS

Election Day Registration Spreads: Since the

last presidential race, two more states (Iowa and

Montana) have adopted Election Day registration

(EDR), enabling voters to fix a registration issue

or register for the first time at the polls on Election

Day. EDR was deemed a success and both states

improved their national rank in voter turnout.

“One-Stop Voting” a Success: North Carolina

also adopted a form of EDR during their 16 day

early voting period. Called “one-stop voting,”

voters in North Carolina could register and vote

at the same time when voting early. With its

one-stop voting and battleground state status,

voter participation in North Carolina rose faster

than any state in the nation, with a 10.8%

turnout increase over 2004.

Early Voting Expands: More voters than ever

voted early. Close to 40 million- or 30% of

Americans casting ballots- took advantage of the

opportunity to vote early in-person or through

the mail (compared to 20% of voters in 2004 and

7% in 1992). Early voting was not only popular

with voters, but also was credited with smoother

election days in Ohio, Florida and other states.

Mail-In Ballots Hit Snags: On the other

hand, vote by mail had increasing problems.

An estimated 500,000 to 750,000 mail ballots

were rejected because voters had made simple

mistakes such as failing to sign or date the correct

envelope. In Minnesota 12,000 mail in ballots

were deemed problems by Election Boards. North

Carolina rejected 7.6% of mail or absentee votes.

Voter Registration Issues Reported Biggest

Voting Problem: The problems of voter

registration took center stage in the 40 states

without Election Day Registration, where a

maze of voter registration laws meant an estimated

1-2 million eligible voters wanting to cast ballots

inadvertently missed advance deadlines or

had registrations lost, returned or processed

incorrectly by election boards, government

agencies and third party registration drives.

Campaign Spending Set Records: For the

first time ever, presidential candidate spending

topped one billion dollars. While there was

a hopeful rise in small donor giving, the small

donors were still drowned out by larger donors

giving upwards of several thousand dollars

each. Over 80% of campaign funds came from

large donors.

Millions of Ex-Offenders Remain Barred from

Voting: In 2008, an estimated 3.5-4 million

American citizens with a felony conviction who

had completed their prison term were still

barred from voting in the election by felony

disenfranchisement laws in 35 states. Rhode

Island was the newest state to join the 14 other

states that allow citizens to automatically regain

their voting right after incarceration, as is the

(minimum) standard of every other democracy.

States Add Paper Trail Laws: By the 2008

election the number of states that had passed a law

that requires voter-verified paper records (vvpr)

of ballots cast had grown to 31. Eight other states

don’t have a “vvpr” law but only use paper ballots.

r highest cking state by state turnout in 1980.

U.S. TURNOUT IN 2008 AND HISTORICAL TRENDSPrimary Sources: U.S. Election Project, IDEA

Broad voter mobilization efforts by the presidential campaigns, advocacy groups and nonpartisan voter

engagement helped drive voter turnout to 62% of eligible voters in 2008, closely approaching the most

recent turnout highs of the Kennedy and Johnson elections in the early 1960s.

• 2008 continued a trend towards higher turnout. This increase in citizen participation follows decades

of somewhat lower turnout that began when 18 year olds won the right to vote in 1972 (with the

exception of a spike in 1992 when Ross Perot ran an unusually strong third party campaign).

• The participation increase was fueled in part by large increases in voting by young voters 18-29 and

Latino and Black voters.

• Factors lowering the turnout rate include lower turnout in many non-battleground states (see chart p.9)

high rejection rates for mail-in ballots and a larger than expected number of older voters who didn’t vote.

Voter Turnout Rises for 3rd Consecutive ElectionTotal Ballots Cast as a Percent of Voting Eligible Population

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

65%

60%

55%

50%

64%> 63%> 62%> 57%> 55%> 55%> 57%> 54%> 59%> 53%> 55%> 61%> 62%>

4

Top Ten States in Voter Turnout 2008Total Ballots Cast as a Percent of Voting Eligible Population

AK OR MO MI IA CO NH ME WI MN

80%

70%

60%

50%

68.5% 68.5% 68.8% 69.4% 70.2% 70.5% 72.2% 72.7% 73.3% 78.5%


2008 STATE TURNOUT RANKINGS

In most elections, voter turnout is driven primarily by the importance of the election, political competition,

citizen mobilization, a state’s voting procedures and recent local turnout history. In presidential elections,

however, it’s a state’s “battleground state” status that can have some of the strongest impact on turnout

and 2008 was no exception. Colorado was not only a battleground state, but also had hard fought

contests for a U.S. Senate seat and ballot measures, driving turnout to over 70%. Virginia and North

Carolina emerged as swing states, while other states became less competitive.

In addition to battleground states, states with Election Day Registration (EDR) had, on average, much

higher turnout rates. Minnesota, an EDR state with a steadily diversifying population, remained the

turnout leader in 2008 with a record 78.1% of eligible voters casting a ballot.

State VEP TORank 2008

(2004)EDR SS State VEP TO

Rank 2008

(2004)EDR SS

Minnesota 3,721,943 78.5% 1 (1) X X Idaho 1,034,402 64.5% 27 (19) X

Wisconsin 4,113,565 73.3% 2 (2) X X Nebraska 1,278,980 63.5% 28 (24)

Maine 1,024,699 72.7% 3 (3) X Illinois 8,794,625 63.4% 29 (28)

New Hampshire 997,247 72.2% 4 (5) X X Kansas 1,978,713 63.1% 30 (27)

Colorado 3,441,907 70.5% 5 (11) X Rhode Island 754,438 62.9% 31 (35)

Iowa 2,199,849 70.2% 6 (6) X X Louisiana 3,158,676 62.7% 32 (29)

Michigan 7,263,250 69.4% 7 (12) X California 21,993,429 62.5% 33 (33)

Missouri 4,296,592 68.8% 8 (16) X Georgia 6,390,590 62.0% 34 (41)

Alaska 477,763 68.5% 9 (7) Alabama 3,398,289 62.0% 35 (39)

Oregon 2,695,058 68.5% 10 (4) Mississippi 2,114,108 61.6% 36 (42)

Virginia 5,500,265 68.2% 11 (30) X Dist of Columbia 438,201 60.9% 37 (46)

Maryland 3,888,726 68.2% 12 (26) New Mexico 1,376,025 60.6% 38 (31) X

Florida 12,426,633 68.0% 13 (20) X Indiana 4,634,261 60.5% 39 (43) X

Connecticut 2,451,296 67.9% 14 (15) Kentucky 3,156,794 58.9% 40 (34)

Washington 4,535,438 67.7% 15 (10) South Carolina 3,279,329 58.8% 41 (50)

Ohio 8,541,239 67.6% 16 (9) X Nevada 1,652,846 58.7% 42 (44) X

Montana 741,538 67.1% 17 (18) X New York 13,183,464 58.2% 43 (38)

Vermont 487,430 67.1% 18 (13) Tennessee 4,533,233 57.8% 44 (40)

New Jersey 5,844,477 66.9% 19 (23) Oklahoma 2,578,351 57.3% 45 (36)

Massachusetts 4,652,749 66.7% 20 (21) Arizona 4,096,006 56.7% 46 (47)

North Carolina 6,551,412 66.5% 21 (37) X X Texas 14,780,857 55.2% 47 (49)

Delaware 622,664 66.4% 22 (22) Utah 1,787,350 54.3% 48 (32)

North Dakota 486,871 66.0% 23 (17) NR Arkansas 2,033,146 53.9% 49 (48)

Wyoming 389,304 65.8% 24 (14) X West Virginia 1,409,823 51.9% 50 (45)

Pennsylvania 9,363,381 64.9% 25 (25) X Hawaii 898,922 50.7% 51 (51)

South Dakota 598,635 64.7% 26 (8) United States 212,720,027 62.3%

Turnout is the percent of the Voting Eligible Population who cast a ballot that was counted on or before Election Day (including those provisional

votes and other votes validated post-election). A few states report only total votes counted for the highest office race (President). For those states,

we add a standard 1% residual vote rate in order to arrive at an estimate of total ballots cast. Primary source: U.S. Election Project. Swing states

based on spending, candidate appearances (see p.8-9). * NC combines EDR and One Stop Early Voting.

5

GROWTH IN VOTER TURNOUT IN THE STATES: 2004 – 2008Primary Sources: U.S. Election Project

Looking at turnout growth turns the spotlight from high turnout states like Minnesota to states

like North Carolina or Virginia where participation rose sharply over 2004. The impact of higher

turnout among black voters (AL, DC, etc.) and Latino voters (CA, NV) can be seen in the charts

below. We also see the likely impact that having a native son on the ticket in President Obama’s

home states (IL, HI) had on turnout, and how a change to battleground state status (NC, VA, IN)

can improve turnout. Overall -

• 26 states achieved their highest voter turnout since the U.S. Election Project began tracking state by

state turnout in 1980. Not a single state recorded its lowest turnout.

• The adjacent states of North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia were leaders among states that

improved their voter turnout between 2004 and 2008, with increases of 10.8%, 9.8% and 9.9%

respectively after adjusting for growth in the states’ voting eligible populations.

• Turnout in North Carolina benefited from “one-stop” voting, which allowed voters to register and

vote at the same time throughout its early voting period.

• Being a new swing state boosted turnout in Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina, while

Washington, Oregon and Maine became less important Electoral College battlegrounds.

26 STATES SET A 30 YEAR RECORD FOR HIGHEST TURNOUT IN 2008

Based on achieving the highest percent turnout of the state’s eligible voters since the U.S. Election Project began tracking turnout by state in 1980.

Ten States with Largest Turnout Gains over 2004Adjusted for change in Voting Eligible Population between 2004 and 2005

RI DC MD AL GA IN MS SC VA NC

11%

9%

7%

5%

6.0% 6.3% 6.5% 7.5% 7.5% 8.0% 8.9% 9.8% 9.9% 10.8%

6

Alabama

California

Colorado

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Indiana

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

Missouri

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

Washington


GROWTH IN VOTER TURNOUT IN THE STATES: 2004 – 2008

State Gain Increase in Voters

GrowthRank State Gain Increase

in VotersGrowth

Rank

North Carolina 10.8% 802,122 1 New Mexico 2.3% 58,064 26

Virginia 9.9% 529,903 2 Delaware 1.9% 36,155 27

South Carolina 9.8% 300,433 3 New Hampshire 1.7% 35,971 28

Mississippi 8.9% 138,697 4 Minnesota 1.6% 78,235 29

Indiana 8.0% 293,844 5 Vermont 1.3% 12,602 30

Alabama 7.5% 215,305 6 New York 1.3% 226,518 31

Georgia 7.5% 646,348 7 Tennessee 1.2% 161,628 32

Maryland 6.5% 255,637 8 Wyoming 1.2% 10,246 33

Dist of Columbia 6.3% 36,766 9 North Dakota 1.1% 5,084 34

Rhode Island 6.0% 34,237 10 Washington 0.4% 188,088 35

Nevada 5.3% 138,456 11 Iowa 0.3% 21,696 36

Massachusetts 4.6% 175,540 12 Ohio 0.1% 50,944 37

Illinois 4.3% 227,702 13 Idaho -0.2% 54,720 38

Hawaii 4.2% 24,402 14 Maine -1.0% -7,063 39

Montana 4.1% 41,503 15 Arkansas -1.4% 25,385 40

California 4.0% 1,153,810 16 Kentucky -1.4% 41,711 41

Connecticut 3.9% 55,452 17 Kansas -1.7% 35,123 42

Michigan 3.6% 163,388 18 Nebraska -2.1% 19,017 43

New Jersey 3.5% 272,067 19 Arizona -2.5% 282,782 44

Pennsylvania 3.1% 244,686 20 Oregon -3.0% -6,420 45

Louisiana 3.0% 23,262 21 Alaska -3.3% 12,839 46

Colorado 2.9% 277,339 22 Oklahoma -3.4% -1,323 47

Florida 2.7% 813,424 23 West Virginia -4.5% -37,954 48

Missouri 2.7% 189,822 24 Wisconsin -4.8% -3,037 49

Texas 2.4% 672,612 25 South Dakota -8.3% -7,481 50

Utah -14.2% 29,175 51

Notes on the Table

1. Turnout growth is the percent increase or decrease in total turnout of eligible voters compared to the last Presidential Election in 2004 –

adjusted for the growth in the number of eligible voters in the states from 2004 to 2008.

2. The numerical increase in voters is the total unadjusted for population change

7

States with Highest Voter Growth 1996 - 2008Percent Growth in Number of Voters, Adjusted for Change in Voting Eligible

TN OH KY NH AZ MO NM WI MI AL DE CO FL PA DC MS VA SC MD GA NC NV

35%

25%

15%

5%

16% 16% 16% 17% 18% 18% 18% 19% 19% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22% 22% 24% 25% 25% 25% 26% 29% 30%

CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND VOTER TURNOUTPrimary Sources: CNN, Fair Vote, Washington Post

New fundraising records were set in 2008. As usual, most of the millions raised were spent on a small

number of voters in a small number of “super battleground states,” evidenced most clearly in the final

six weeks of the campaign. After the conventions, the party’s nominees spent little money and made

few stops in the vast majority of U.S. states.

X T

A C

T M

Z A

D I

M N

V N

O C

R O

T U L I

Y W

S K

A I

D S

N M

E N

D N

K O

L F

I W

A W

O M

L A A G

R A

A L

I M

A P

N I

C N

Y N

S M

N T

A V Y K

H O

C S

E M

V W

T V H N

A M

K A

I H

g n i d n e p S

e t a t S / n o i l l i M 9 6 - 8 3 $ 1 r e i T

e t a t S / n o i l l i M 5 2 - 5 1 $ 2 r e i T

e t a t S / n o i l l i M 8 - 7 $ 3 r e i T

e l b i g i l g e N 4 r e i T

RI

CT

NJ

DE

DC

MD

Ad Spending from 9/24/2008 – 11/4/2008

8

• In the final 6 weeks

of the campaign,

more than 95% of

money spent by

the candidates on

ads was spent in

only 15 states,

which account for

less than 40%

the nation’s voting

eligible population.

• More than half

of that money was

spent in the 4

super battleground

states: Florida,

Ohio, Pennsylvania

and Virginia.

• Campaign ad

spending correlates

closely with the

candidates’

campaign events

during that time

period.

• More than 98%

of campaign events

took place in the

same 15 states,

with more than

half of those

events taking place

in Florida, Ohio

and Pennsylvania.

s t n e v E

e t a t S / s t i s i V 2 6 - 0 4 1 r e i T

e t a t S / s t i s i V 3 2 - 0 2 2 r e i T

e t a t S / s t i s i V 5 1 - 7 3 r e i T

e t a t S / s t i s i V 2 - 0 4 r e i T

X T

A C

T M

Z A

D I

M N

V N

O C

R O

T U L I

Y W

S K

A I

D S

N M

E N

D N

K O

L F

I W

A W

O M

L A A G

R A

A L

I M

A P

N I

C N

Y N

S M

N T

A V Y K

H O

C S

E M

V W

T V H N

A M

K A

I H

RI

CT

NJ

DE

DC

MD

Candidate Events from 9/5/2008 – 11/4/2008


2008 Voter Turnout in Swing and Non-swing States

Non-swing Turnout Swing Turnout

% Turnout of Eligible Voters

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

60% 67%

• In 2008, the 15 battleground states where candidates spent the most money and time- and where

campaign organizing and mobilization was more intense- averaged turnout that was seven points

higher than in non-battleground states.

• Low turnout in the large non-swing states of California, New York and Texas – home to 40 million

eligible voters – was one reason turnout was lower than the most recent 1960 high of the

Kennedy-Nixon contest.

The winner-take-all and balkanized dynamics of the Electoral College have a negative impact on voter

turnout. Campaigns have no incentive to spend resources in a state that is either securely in their

grasp or out of their reach when those resources could be better spent in a state where the outcome is

unknown. The number of safe states has increased in the last four elections while the number of swing

states has declined, with more and more voters left feeling irrelevant. In 2008, 132 million or three

out of five citizen eligible voters lived in a non-battleground state where campaigns rarely visited,

spent little to no money and did little organizing.

The civic loss to the 132 million eligible voters in the non-swing states can’t be quantified. Non-swing

state voters must leave their state to impact the election. People in non-swing states miss the meaningful

opportunity to contact their neighbors or hold events – unless it’s to call voters in swing states!

They will not have a major candidate visit and will see less news coverage and fewer ads (like them or not).

Even in battleground states, all are not equal. In all but two states, the presidential election is winner-

take-all. That means that, even though mobilizing the base in a state is important, campaigns often end

up spending disproportionate resources on a small group of swing, undecided voters. When 95% of

campaign dollars go to 15 states and most of those dollars are spent on a small group of undecided

voters in those states, tens of millions of voters are left out.

A growing number of states and citizen organizations have taken up the call to replace the Electoral

College with a national popular vote. It is time to extend the principle of one person, one vote to

our nation’s election for its highest office to ensure every citizen’s vote counts and is campaigned for.

For more on a National Popular Vote plan, see section on “National Popular Vote”, p.19.

2008 Effect of Large Non-Swing States on Turnout

2008 Turnout Without CA, NY, TX

% Turnout of Eligible Voters

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

62% 64%

9

ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION AND VOTER TURNOUT 2008Primary Sources: U.S. Election Project

Election Day Registration allows voters to either update their voter registration or register for the first

time and vote on Election Day – all at their polling place.

The newest states to adopt a form of Election Day registration - Iowa, Montana, and North Carolina –

all had great success. States that already allow voters to address registration issues when voting include

Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Idaho and Wyoming. North Dakota does not have

voter registration.

States that have Election Day Registration have had consistently higher voter participation rates, even

after adjusting for all other turnout factors.

• Five of the six top turnout states in the 2008 presidential election (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine,

New Hampshire and Iowa) are EDR states.

• Overall, in the 2008 presidential election, states with EDR averaged voter turnout 10 points higher

than states without EDR

• This higher turnout in EDR states is consistent with previous presidential elections years (see chart).

Election Day Registration represents an important first step towards universal and automatic voter

registration for all eligible citizens. For more, see section on “Expanding Voter Registration”, p.14.

Voter Turnout in States with EDR vs. Others

Non-EDR EDR States

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

62% 71%

Turnout Trends in EDR and Non-EDR States

1996 2000 2004 2008

75%

65%

55%

45%

53% 63% 55% 68% 61% 74% 62% 71%

10 America Goes to the Polls 2008

Non-EDR EDR Non-EDR EDR Non-EDR EDR Non-EDR EDR

EARLY VOTING IN 2008Primary Sources: US Election Project, Democracy Corps, The Early Voting Information Center, Electionline.org

Early voting includes voting early in person, by mail, or dropping off a mail-in ballot on Election Day.

The impact of early voting on turnout in presidential elections is difficult to quantify. However,

there is no doubt that early voting, particularly early voting in-person, provides low-income and urban

voters (those who face the greatest barriers to voting) or any voter, with increased opportunity to vote.

Every state has some form of early voting even if only by-mail and with an excuse. As of the 2008 election,

36 states allowed early voting in-person or by mail without an excuse. For more information, go to the

additional early voting section on page 15 of this report.

Early voting continued to grow in 2008, rising from 20% of votes cast in 2004 to 30% of votes cast in

2008, representing about 40 million early voters. For comparison, in 1992 only 7% of voters cast their

vote before Election Day. Reasons for this rise include changes in state law that allowed more voters

to vote early; greater promotion of early voting by election officials, the campaigns and the media; and

increased voter enthusiasm.

• Nearly half of all early voters in 2008 had never used early voting before. For one in 10 early voters,

2008 was their first time voting.

• In 10 states, more than half of all ballots cast were cast early (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nevada,

New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington)

• Early voting rose most dramatically in Georgia, Colorado, Utah and North Carolina. Each of these

states saw an increase in early voting of roughly 30% compared to 2004.

• Higher early voting was credited with smoother election days in Ohio and Florida and other states.

11

Early Voting as a Portion of Overall Voting1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 (1996 unavailable)

1992 2000 2004 2008

30%

20%

10%

0%

7%> 15%> 20%> 30%>

YOUTH VOTE 2008Primary Source: CIRCLE, National Election Pool Exit Poll by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as reported by CNN Election Center.

The Census will release its often cited estimates of youth turnout later this year.

Youth voter turnout in 2008 set a new record since 18-20 year olds gained the right to vote in 1972.

It marked the third consecutive presidential election where turnout among young voters 18-29 has risen.

• The total youth turnout is estimated at 22-24 million, or 52-3% of eligible voters aged 18-29, up from

48% in 2004 and 41% in 2000.

• Young voters comprised 18% of the electorate on November 4

th compared to 17% in 2004, continuing

their steady rise in vote share in 2004, 2000 and 1996.

• A significant factor is higher voting among Latino and black youth and the large share of the youth

vote they and other young voters of color represent.

CIRCLE, the leading source on trends in youth voting, notes that increases in young Latino vote and

young black vote played a key role in the 2008 overall percentage increases of Latino and black voters.

The Youth Vote Is Steadily GrowingYouth vote as share of the eligible youth voting population

1996 2000 2004 2008

60%

50%

40%

30%

37%> 41%> 48%> 52%>

12

Black and Latino Share of Youth Vote RisesAs a percentage of the overall youth voting population

Black Latino20%

15%

10%

5%

12% 12% 15% 17% 8% 10% 13% 17%

1996 2000 2004 2008 1996 2000 2004 2008


THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND LATINO VOTE 2008 Primary Source: U.S. Census Report on Voting 1996, 2000, 2004; 2008 National Election Pool Exit Poll by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as reported by CNN Election Center, Pew Hispanic Center

AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE

• The African American vote showed a significant jump in 2008 to 13% of those voting in the 2008

election, up from 11% in 2004.

• This represents about 2.6 million more black voters going to the polls in 2008.

• Higher black turnout helped southern states achieve their highest voter turnout in at least 30 years.

(Including AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA)

LATINO VOTE 2008

Latino voter turnout continued its steady rise due to both population growth and higher voter participation.

• More than 12 million Latino voters cast ballots representing an estimated 9% those voting in 2008,

up from 8% in 2004 and 7% in 2000.

• The largest increases in Latino percentage of the electorate occurred in New Mexico (9 point

increase), Colorado (5 point increase) and Nevada (5 point increase) – all swing states. (Pew

Hispanic Center)

• In the Southwest, voter turnout increased by 10-15% in counties with large Latino populations,

such as those encompassing Denver, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and El Paso.

• The Latino vote was again strongly Democratic (67%) after lower than usual support for the

Democratic nominee in 2004 (53%).

The Growing Latino VoteAs a share of the overall voting population

1996 2000 2004 2008

10%

8%

6%

4%

5% 7% 8% 9%

A Surge in African American Voters in 2008As a share of the overall voting population

1996 2000 2004 2008

14%

13%

12%

11%

10%

11% 12% 11% 13%

13

14

ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION AND

AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION

In 2008 the problems of voter registration took center

stage as once again, several million eligible voters were

unable to vote on Election Day due to a registration

issue. Amidst a patchwork of laws, procedures and

deadlines in 50 states and 3,000 counties, voters

wishing to cast ballots had registrations lost, returned

or submitted incorrectly by third party registration

drives. Many voters, especially newer ones, missed

their state’s varying advance deadlines or did not

update their address and live in a state with no option

to correct a registration issue when voting on Election

Day. Others dutifully submitted registrations to their

Secretary of State or Department of Motor Vehicles

who in the flood of all their other business neglected

to forward the information to local election boards.

This voter registration maze contrasts with all other

mature and newer democracies, where registration is

automatic or universal. Governments use existing

contacts with their citizens to ensure citizens are

registered to vote and that their registrations are

updated when they move. Several U.S. states, though,

have found an effective way to achieve the goal of

universal voter registration, helping to ensure every

eligible voter who wants to vote can do so. It’s called

Election Day or “same day” registration. EDR has

worked well for decades for states like Minnesota,

Wisconsin and Maine, all of whom adopted the

practice in the 1970’s. Five other states - Idaho, Iowa,

Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming - followed

their lead in the last quarter century. Most recently,

North Carolina adopted a version of EDR letting

voters register or update their registration and cast

their vote at the same time during a 16-day-long early

voting period. This “one-stop” voting was one of the

main reasons why North Carolina led the nation this

year in its increase in voter turnout over 2004.

A FEDERAL DEMOCRACY STANDARD

Election Day Registration has proven successful in

every state where it has been adopted, and should be the

foundation of a national standard for Universal Voter

Registration. In 2009, there is no reason for a state not

to provide some version of Election Day registration,

whether it’s at the precinct level or at the county election

office. Not only does EDR promise citizens a more

successful voting experience; it can reduce costs for local

government by reducing the number of oft-faulty

registrations submitted by third party groups, the

processing of which wastes valuable election board

time and money. States with EDR also save money on

processing and counting provisional ballots, because

far fewer provisional ballots are cast when voters can

update their registration at their polling place.

EXPANDING VOTER REGISTRATION

• Beyond EDR, there are

other valuable proposals

to make voter registration

more automatic and

encourage higher levels

of voting and citizenship.

• Register high school

students at graduation

or when signing up for

selective service.

• Register new citizens at

swearing in ceremonies

• Implement the 1993

National Voter

Registration Act that

ask federal agencies to

register people receiving

government services.

• Make voter registration

opt-out rather than opt-in

with the application

for or renewal of a

driver’s license or other

state ID

“If not for EDR, tens of thousands of voting- eligible Iowans would not have been able to participate in this historic election.” – Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro


15

EARLY VOTING

PROBLEMS WITH

VOTING BY MAIL

Excerpted from No Vote by

Mail Project

• Not a secret ballot

• Less secure as when

private companies are

contracted to sort

ballots

• Can be more costly

than poll based

system.

• Too many mistakes

made by voters signing

and dating envelopes,

etc.

• Vote suppression,

buying or stuffing

become far easier

• Ballots get lost or

misplaced by post

offices, counties, and

voters themselves.

• Can significantly

delay election results.

Early voting is a growing part of American elections.

In the 2008 presidential election, a record breaking

30+ million voters cast their ballots before Election

Day, either in-person or through the mail. Millions of

others in non-early voting states would have done so

as well, had they the option.

Since Tuesday voting was adopted to convenience

farmers of the mid-19th century, work day voting has

presented problems for many voters. Early voting goes

much farther to address these problems than have

past alternatives. Extending voting hours has limited

effect. Voting on Saturday might make it easier to

recruit poll workers, but Saturday is a day when most

Americans are running errands, attending sporting

events, vacationing, etc. Making Election Day a holiday

in presidential election years is not a bad idea, but it

is not a solution for the many important primaries,

off-year elections and special elections.


Early voting is a relatively new way to vote and best

practices for early voting are still emerging. Early

voting can be divided into two broad categories: early

in-person voting and absentee voting or vote-by-mail.

Early In-Person Voting

This report defines early in-person voting as the option

to vote early at a designated early voting site or at a

local election office. It could also include delivering

a mail in ballot in-person to an election official who

can verify the outside envelope is marked correctly.

Early in-person voting is generally a better option than

absentee voting or vote-by-mail. Recommended are the

following three guidelines for early in-person voting:

• Provide fair and good access to an early voting site

starting at least 10 but no more than 16 days before

Election Day and continuing through Election Day.

• Open on at least two Saturdays or weekends

• Allow early voters with identification the opportunity

to update their registration or register for the first time

when casting their ballot- as is done in North Carolina.

Absentee Voting or Vote-by-Mail

Vote-by-Mail is growing, but so is the list of potential

problems as made strikingly evident most recently

when the state of Minnesota had to recount 2.7 million

ballots in its 2008 US Senate race. In spite of its

numerous problems, vote-by-mail has long been

an essential component of early voting, especially for

those living in rural areas, unable to leave their

domicile or preferring a mail ballot like those who

enjoy weighing choices on lengthy ballot measures

at home. Recommended are the following:

• Provide voters the option of a mail in ballot without

an “excuse”. (Allow the voter to determine need.)

• Help voters avoid simple mistakes completing absentee

ballots by, for example, allowing voters to turn in mail-in

ballots in person.

• Monitor outside parties involved in collecting or

helping voters complete mail-in ballots.

“Early Voting was a huge advantage.” – Jane Platten, Director, Cuyahoga Board of Elections in Ohio on making for a smoother Election Day

16

VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX-OFFENDERS

VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX- OFFENDERS

The United States is the only advanced democracy not

to restore the right to vote to people leaving prison.

An estimated 3.5 million Americans with a felony

conviction are barred from voting after completing their

prison term and are back living in their communities.

Disenfranchisement laws vary widely in the 50 states.

These 19th century laws are the only laws left that

allow states to choose their own definition of an eligible

voter with the potential to sway elections like President

and Congress.

While felon disenfranchisement laws have different

roots, diluting the voting power of newly freed

slaves was one of them. A striking example is the

1890 Mississippi Constitution which included

provisions disenfranchising voters convicted of a

specific list of crimes like vagrancy associated with

ex-slave populations more likely to be homeless.

The Mississippi Supreme Court wrote that the

new constitution “swept the circle of expedients to

obstruct the exercise of the franchise by the negro

race… Restrained by the federal constitution from

discriminating against the negro race, the convention

discriminated against its characteristics and the offenses

to which its weaker members were prone . . .”.

Not just a southern issue, New York was accused of

doing the same in the 1820’s when it targeted certain

crimes for disenfranchisement.

The variance of these laws state to state provides great

confusion for anyone with a past conviction. Many

people with a recent conviction believe they can’t vote

when in fact they often can. 15 states do allow citizen

eligible voters to vote as soon as they leave prison as

an important start to rehabilitation.


Preventing a free person from voting after leaving

prison runs counter to all we know about civic

participation and encouraging positive and law abiding

behavior. Further, as a core democratic principle, a

nation must have one definition of an eligible voter

for national elections. For federal elections, the United

States should adopt the democratic standard already

used in 15 states and standard to all other democracies:

Allow and encourage citizens to vote immediately upon

leaving prison and re-entering society.

For voter turnout, this national standard would

enfranchise the more than three million voters who

have completed their prison term and result in more

voters. For democracy, voting is rehabilitative.

Individuals who vote are far more likely to be involved

in a positive way with community life. Studies like

one done in the 1980’s and 1990’s in Minnesota

demonstrate this as voting is highly correlated with a

lower likelihood to commit a future criminal offense

by those with or without a past conviction. Society

risks permanently alienating citizens from the political

process when it uses voting as a punishment - one reason

why no other advanced democracy does so after prison.

Fast FactsFelon disenfranchisement

laws came after the Civil

War to take away new

voting rights of ex-slaves.

A conviction may have

meant little jail time but

it did mean the loss of

voting rights for years if

not for life.

Today these laws still

disenfranchise 13% of

African American men,

a rate seven times the

national average.

Alabama disqualifies

voters convicted of a felony

involving moral turpitude

but has yet to specify what

offenses this includes.


17

Given the option, voters consistently like and prefer ranked

choice voting and say that it is easy to use.

Ranked choice reduces negative campaigning as candidates

seek to appeal to a broader range of voters who may vote for

them as a 2nd or 3rd choice.

A SMALL DONOR PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

FINANCE SYSTEM

In spite of an increase in small donors, candidates still

get over 80% of campaign funds from big donors with

interests before government. Large donors have a

disproportionate opportunity to influence laws,

government contracts and more. Citizens of ordinary

means and without access to large donors are less

likely to run for office. Voters wonder about the value

of their vote versus the access large donors get.


Congress has legislation pending that would base

federal campaigns of the future on small donations

matched by limited public funds. These “small donor

systems” already work well in several cities and states.

They ban candidates from accepting large donations,

establish reasonable spending limits and allow qualified

candidates to run a competitive campaign based on

small donors incentivized by public funds.

For voter turnout, a small donor/public system can

create more competition on a more level playing field,

factors known to increase voter participation. For

democracy, ending large campaign contributions will

help put a stop to both the actual and apparent undue

influence of big donors on law and policy and help

restore voter confidence in our democratic process.

RANKED CHOICE VOTING/IRV

Healthy political competition is at the heart of

democracy’s promise to give voters meaningful choices

– the chance to re-elect or replace a candidate or party.

Why do the majority of U.S. elections feature so little

competition between viable candidates? The primary

reason is our two hundred year reliance on a plurality

voting method. This method mathematically limits

competition to two major parties. Inherited in the 1700’s

from colonial England, plurality voting also allows

candidates to “win” even when a large majority of

voters support other candidates. Its zero-sum contests

encourage negative campaigns. Anyone outside the

two major parties is immediately labeled a “spoiler”

because, without a runoff mechanism, whenever more

than two candidates contest a seat, it can and does

split votes of candidates with similar views.


There’s a straightforward solution now widely used in

countries that, like the U.S., got their voting method

from England. Ranked Choice Voting, or Instant

Runoff Voting, allows voters to simply rank their

choices 1-2-3. It is a more modern version of plurality

voting that, though it remains winner-take-all, does

require the winner to gain the backing of a majority of

voters in the district.

For voter turnout, Ranked Choice Voting eliminates

the idea of “throwing your vote away,” one disincentive

to voting for those who don’t want their first choice

vote to go to one of the two major parties. Because it

promotes healthy competition voter participation

is likely to be more robust. For democracy, Ranked

Choice Voting ensures that the winning candidate is

also the majority winner and removes the “spoiler”

label for newer or third parties.

Studies show the largest campaign donors after lawyers and

lobbyists come from the securities, finance and real estate

industries. Health care and business service are next.

Large campaign donors as a whole represent less than one

half of one-percent of the voting age population.

OTHER KEY ELECTION REFORMS

Fast Facts Fast Facts

18

9 states with computer voting have no mandate for a

paper trail.

Online postings of rejected or accepted ballots from the

Minnesota Senate race were a hit online, but also critical

to the perception of a fair recount.

NONPARTISAN REDISTRICTING

Every ten years, election districts get redrawn based

on the new U.S. Census. Thus begins democracy

in reverse! Incumbents use sophisticated software to

choose their voters by re-drawing their own district

lines so as to include some voters and exclude others.

The party in power inevitably seeks safe districts

for their own incumbents and less opportunity for

opponents. Ethnic groups, minority party voters or

low voting groups like students and non-citizens are

packed and cracked into districts. It can reduce political

competition giving voters fewer truly contested races

and less reason to turnout to vote.


Since the Supreme Court decisions of the 1960’s,

newly drawn districts must abide by the one person, one

vote principle. However, the practice of incumbent

legislators choosing their voters remains. Though no

nonpartisan system is perfect, the modern British

model of a broad-based nonpartisan commission

consulting voters, communities and legislators goes far

in the right direction to end the practice of intentionally

drawing safe districts by political parties and incumbents.

For voter turnout, nonpartisan redistricting could help

participation by bringing more competition into elections

and reducing the perception that elected officials are

undemocratically choosing their voters instead of being

chosen by them. For democracy, it would remove

partisan politics from election administration, as is

done or aspired to in most democracies, including

all new ones established with U.S. support, as well as

help keep communities together while maintaining the

standards of the Voting Rights Act and one person,

one vote.

PAPER BALLOT AUDIT TRAIL

The integrity of the vote can be compromised by voting

technology that does not have a paper trail. The voter

needs something to verify that a piece of paper reflects

the choices they made. Above all, it is reasonable

to ask how can we have a recount with nothing to

recount? An election has little credibility with U.S.

voters unless there are paper ballots to recount. This

was most dramatically the case in the 2008 Minnesota

US Senate race where the ability to examine all 2.7

million ballots cast in the Senate race was crucial.


A voter-verified paper audit trail is the best protection

available to guarantee that an individual’s vote has

been both recorded and counted correctly by an

electronic voting machine (such as a touch screen).

Since 2004 the most progress was made on this issue.

A law came close to passage in the recent Congress.

32 states have moved ahead with a law of their own

that requires and guarantees such a paper trail for

their own citizens and another nine states use paper

ballots anyway. Paper ballots are also used in the UK,

Canada, India and other comparable democracies.

For voter turnout, removing any interference with the

integrity of the voting system serves to create greater

voter confidence and thereby greater willingness to

participate in our electoral system overall. For

democracy, creating a paper trail helps to ensure that

a technical mistake- either by error or design- will not

result in a vote being lost, upholding the democratic

principle that every ballot cast is a ballot counted.

Partisan districting is called “gerrymandering” after the

notorious salamander district drawn by Massachusetts

Governor Gerry in 1820

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, made illegal the practice of

packing of black voters into a few districts to dilute their

voting. Vote packing today is more likely to be partisan

than based on race.

Fast Facts Fast Facts


19

VOTER ID

The passage of the 2002 Help America Vote Act

(HAVA) created a federal standard voter ID requirement

of either a photo ID or paper document like a bank

statement or utility bill. However, it let states expand

on this requirement. Due to the cost and difficulty in

both obtaining and updating government photo IDs,

these requirements can discriminate against senior,

low-income and young voters, all of whom are less

likely to have up-to-date IDs. Ostensibly the reason

for voter ID laws is to prevent voter fraud; however

individual voter fraud has been shown to be virtually

nonexistent, and placing an unnecessary emphasis on

it serves to detract from the very real roadblocks that

thousands of Americans face every Election Day when

casting a ballot.


A photo ID requirement for voting cannot work unless

these IDs are freely available to all voters and easy to

update. It can not be a poll tax where required IDs cost

money. ID is a broader civic issue affecting employment,

travel and societal access with many issues to resolve.

One of the best features of the 2002 Help America

Vote Act was its reasonable ID standard. It works

fine today in 44 states. Minor adjustments as part of

a large bi-partisan election reform package would be

reasonable within that standard.

For voter turnout, removing ID as a barrier to voting

will help ensure that no voter is prevented from casting

a ballot on Election Day due solely to the preventative

difficulties of obtaining a valid ID. For democracy,

ensuring equal access to the polls by removing

unnecessary voter hurdles helps create the free and fair

elections necessary to a true representative democracy.

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

Every four years CNN and the media reboot their

electoral maps and color between the lines - red

or blue. Campaigns poll and target the 10 -15

“battleground states” most likely to decide the

election. A few bigger states like Ohio or Florida

emerge as the super battleground states, absorbing

half of campaign ads, mobilization expenditures

and candidate visits. Meanwhile, over 100 million

American voters watch from the sidelines, except

to call or visit voters in other states.

The Electoral College was born to hold together a

fledgling republic, a compromise between a divided

north and south akin to counting non-voting black

slaves as three-fifths of a person to boost the

representation and electoral votes of slaveholder states.


A bill in Congress would abolish the Electoral College

in favor of a national popular vote by Constitutional

Amendment. Another way to enact a national

popular vote for president (without formally amending

the Constitution) is known as the “National Popular

Vote Plan.” States sign into law an agreement that

they will give their electoral votes to the popular vote

winner for the country at large. Once a majority of

states have passed this law, the Plan will go into effect

and the national popular vote will determine the

winner of every presidential election that follows.

Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii have

signed on, and many more states are considering the

bill. For democracy the national popular vote ends

a compromise made for slaveholder states and instills

the principle of one person, one vote to the election

for president. For turnout, it brings the campaign

and mobilization to voters in every state.

• Of all Americans without a driver’s license:

• One-fifth are 18-24 yrs olds

• Over one-third are seniors

• Over 70% are women.

In 2008, The Supreme Court, in a divided ruling, failed

to overturn Indiana’s photo ID restrictions. The case has

drawn national attention to the partisan intent of these ID

laws and potential to discriminate.

A group of nuns were turned away in the 2008 election for

lack of photo ID in Indiana

Fast Facts Fast Facts“The States were divided into different interests not by their

difference of size, but by other circumstance … principally

from (the effects of) having or not having slaves.” James

Madison, Records of the Federal Convention, 1787

The Electoral College has deemed a candidate President

the winner even though in one of four presidential elections

that candidate has failed to gain the support of the

majority of voters.

20

SOURCES

PAGES 4 AND 5 – GENERAL TURNOUT PRIMARY SOURCES

United States Election Project, elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout

Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm

PAges 6 ANd 7 – TuRNOuT gROwTh PRIMARy sOuRCes

U.S. Election Project

PAGES 8 AND 9 – BATTLEGROUND STATES PRIMARY SOURCES

CNN Politics.com, “Election Tracker”, www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map

FairVOTE, “2008’s Shrinking Battleground,” www.fairvote.org

PAGE 10 – ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION 2008, PRIMARY SOURCES


PAGE 11 – EARLY VOTING 2008, PRIMARY SOURCES


The Early Voting Information Center, www.earlyvoting.net

Democracy Corps, “The 2008 Early Vote”, www.democracycorps.com

McDonald, Michael P., “The Return of the Voter: Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election,”

The Forum, www.bepress.com/forum

Electionline.org, “The 2008 Election in Review, www.pewcenteronthestates.org

PAGE 12 – YOUTH VOTE, PRIMARY SOURCES

CIRCLE, www.civicyouth.org

National Election Pool Exit Poll by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, www.cnn.com/

ELECTION/2008/results/polls/ #USP00p1

PAge 13 – BLACk ANd LATINO VOTe, PRIMARy sOuRCes

Pew Hispanic Center, http://pewhispanic.org

U.S. Census Bureau Voting and Registration, www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting

2008 National Election Pool Exit Poll by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International

PAGES 14-19 – ELECTION REFORM

Universal Registration, Demos www.demos.org, Brennan Center for Justice, www.brennancenter.org

Early Voting, Early Voting Information Center, U.S. Election Project

Restoring Voting Rights to Ex-Offenders, Brennan Center for Justice, Sentencing Project, www.sentencingproject.org

Small Donor Public Campaign Finance, Opensecrets.org, Campaign Finance Institute, www.

Voter ID, Project Vote, projectvote.org,

Voting Access for All, NP Action, npaction.org

OTHER SOURCES

Daniel P. Tokaji, Voter Registration and Institutional Reform, Harvard Law and Policy Review Online (2009)

Electionline.org Briefing, Election 2008 in Review, The Pew Center on the States (2008)


SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

TOOLKITS

A Nonprofit’s Guide to Voter Registration

A Nonprofit’s Guide to Hosting a Candidate Forum

Nonprofits, Voting and Elections

FACT SHEETS

“A Nonprofit’s Voter Participation Checklist”

“8 Easy Things Your Nonprofit Can Do to Help

Your Community Vote”

“A Nonprofit’s Guide to Giving Rides to the Polls”

AMERICA GOES TO THE POLLS SERIES

2008 Primaries

2006 General Election

For more nonpartisan voter engagement resources from NVEN,

visit nonprofitVOTE.org and click on “Vote Resources”

ADVISORY BOARD

Diana Aviv, Independent Sector

Harriet Barlow, HKH Foundation

Gary Bass, OMB Watch

Jeffrey Berry, Tufts University

Kafi Blumenfield, Liberty Hill Foundation

John Bridgeland, Civic Enterprises, LLC

Tim Delaney, National Council of Nonprofits

Kari Dunn Saratovsky, The Case Foundation

Pablo Eisenberg, Georgetown Public Policy Institute

Kathay Feng, California Common Cause

Cynthia M. Gibson, Cynthesis Consulting

Deborah Goldberg, Brennan Center for Justice

Peter Goldberg,

Alliance for Children and Families

Hon. Joan Growe, Former Secretary of State, Minnesota

Hon. Amo Houghton, Former Member of Congress

Alexander Keyssar, Harvard Kennedy School of

Government

Kim Klein, Klein & Roth Consulting

Kelly LeRoux, University of Kansas

Peter Levine, CIRCLE at Tufts University’s Tisch College

of Citizenship

Daniella Levine, Human Services Coalition Miami Dade

Dr. Michael McDonald, U.S. Election Project at

George Mason University

Michael McGrath, National Civic League

Linda Nguyen, Alliance for Children and Families

Frank Omowale Satterwhite, National Community

Development Institute

Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute

Lawrence Ottinger, Center for Lobbying in the

Public Interest

Jon Pratt, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits

Miles Rapoport, Demos

Gibran X Rivera, Interaction Institute for Social Change

Mark Rosenman, Union Institute

Nancy Tate, League of Women Voters

Liz Towne, Alliance for Justice

Tracy Westen, Center for Governmental Studies

21

NONPROFIT VOTER ENGAGEMENT NETWORK

c /o Minnesota Council of Nonprofits2314 University Avenue West, Suite 20

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114

america - nonprofit · pdf filenew mexico association of grantmakers and ... actually...

Documents